PDA

View Full Version : Only Four Team in the East are over .500



JasonJohnHorn
11-17-2013, 06:22 PM
Indy.
Miami.
Chicago.
Atlanta.

Every other team is either at .500 (Charlotte), or below it (ever other team). The Atlantic division doesn't have a single team at .500 or higher.


This obviously can't last all season, and is likely an anomaly, but with NY and BK playing poorly, and the Bobcats being the fifth best team in the east, it is a pattern that suggests there is a problem in the east.

The West, surprisingly, only have 8 teams over .500 (in years past the west has seen two or three teams over .500 miss the playoffs). So the issue is not an heavy imbalance between the west and east, but simply a disparity between the good teams and the REALLY REALLY bad teams.

Do you guys thinks there is a disparity problem in the league? And if so, what is the root cause? Simply bad drafting? Anomalous injuries? Super teams? Or is this just an anomaly that will be corrected by the end of December?

KnicksorBust
11-17-2013, 06:26 PM
The two best teams in the nba are in the east. Just bc seeds 6-8 in the west are better is irrelevant.

Goose17
11-17-2013, 06:27 PM
The East is the weaker conference, not exactly breaking news.

Not really sure what the issue is, aside from the fact that it can't be a lone problem, has to be multiple things.

tredigs
11-17-2013, 06:33 PM
The two best teams in the nba are in the east. Just bc seeds 6-8 in the west are better is irrelevant.

When the best players on 3 separate Eastern Conference teams combined they created a team that has been slightly better than what comes out of the West. Outside of that, there's nothing definitive about Indiana being the 2nd best in the game (if that's who you're talking about).

It's DII, has been for decades. One or two elite teams doesn't change that. Still a pet peeve of mine that this conference gets 8 playoff teams.

Hawkeye15
11-17-2013, 06:51 PM
When the best players on 3 separate Eastern Conference teams combined they created a team that has been slightly better than what comes out of the West. Outside of that, there's nothing definitive about Indiana being the 2nd best in the game (if that's who you're talking about).

It's DII, has been for decades. One or two elite teams doesn't change that. Still a pet peeve of mine that this conference gets 8 playoff teams.

pretty much. Been sick of watching a team 10-14 games over .500 missing the playoffs in one conference, and two teams under .500 making it because of the ****** conference they play in.

The funny thing is, so many act like the Heat, or Celtics when they won, were just champs of garbage. Go back and check the Jordan era. The east has had poor management for nearly 25 years.

Hawkeye15
11-17-2013, 06:54 PM
The two best teams in the nba are in the east. Just bc seeds 6-8 in the west are better is irrelevant.

meh, I am not ready to say Indy is the 2nd best team in the NBA. They won 49 games last year, and are just having a hot start this season. Of course, getting to play in the east has generally helped those playoff teams (even though for some reason Miami was better against the West the last couple of seasons than any team in the game), but we can't pretend Indy is with SA, OKC, the two teams who have routinely been 55+ game winners.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
11-17-2013, 06:58 PM
meh, I am not ready to say Indy is the 2nd best team in the NBA. They won 49 games last year, and are just having a hot start this season. Of course, getting to play in the east has generally helped those playoff teams (even though for some reason Miami was better against the West the last couple of seasons than any team in the game), but we can't pretend Indy is with SA, OKC, the two teams who have routinely been 55+ game winners.

I think he just meant record wise thus far.

Hawkeye15
11-17-2013, 07:00 PM
I think he just meant record wise thus far.

then SA is better. Same record, more road games.

bleedprple&gold
11-17-2013, 07:11 PM
This is not shocking. Teams are trying to tank. This is not going to be a good year for parity in the nba. Either you're a championship contender or you're going for a high draft pick. Nobody wants to be caught in between.

KnicksorBust
11-17-2013, 07:39 PM
The two best teams in the nba are in the east. Just bc seeds 6-8 in the west are better is irrelevant.

When the best players on 3 separate Eastern Conference teams combined they created a team that has been slightly better than what comes out of the West. Outside of that, there's nothing definitive about Indiana being the 2nd best in the game (if that's who you're talking about).

It's DII, has been for decades. One or two elite teams doesn't change that. Still a pet peeve of mine that this conference gets 8 playoff teams.

Of course it does. All that matters is the title and the conferences have an equal number of championship caliber teams.

KnicksorBust
11-17-2013, 07:43 PM
The two best teams in the nba are in the east. Just bc seeds 6-8 in the west are better is irrelevant.

meh, I am not ready to say Indy is the 2nd best team in the NBA. They won 49 games last year, and are just having a hot start this season. Of course, getting to play in the east has generally helped those playoff teams (even though for some reason Miami was better against the West the last couple of seasons than any team in the game), but we can't pretend Indy is with SA, OKC, the two teams who have routinely been 55+ game winners.

The past is the past. SAS is a mirage. The Pacers have no holes.

SPURSFAN1
11-17-2013, 07:52 PM
Back in the day, the three best teams in the NBA were dallas spurs and lakers and the west still had way more +.500 teams than the east. The east just doesn't have good teams besides 4 teams.

beasted86
11-17-2013, 08:00 PM
Yes, the Western Conference is the much stronger conference, that is lopsided with the elite teams and elite talent. That's exactly why in the past 10 years, the East only won 5 championships, but the West has won 5 championships.

Wait.... I mean, in the past 26 years, the East only won 13 championships, and West won freaking 13 championships.

So you fools should never talk bad about the mighty Western Conference.

SPURSFAN1
11-17-2013, 08:08 PM
Yes, the Western Conference is the much stronger conference, that is lopsided with the elite teams and elite talent. That's exactly why in the past 10 years, the East only won 5 championships, but the West has won 5 championships.

Wait.... I mean, in the past 26 years, the East only won 13 championships, and West won freaking 13 championships.

So you fools should never talk bad about the mighty Western Conference.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I was talking during the lakers spurs dallas era when when the western conference had the best top 3 teams and all the teams in the playoffs were +.500. It shows that having the best teams in the conference doesn't mean the 6-8th seed having losing records. So that hypothesis is wrong. The real answer is that they just aren't good teams besides the usual 4 teams.

LTBaByyy
11-17-2013, 08:14 PM
The East is just not good, that simple.

Move a good team like Memphis which makes geographically sense anyways to the East and start an expansion in Seattle

East has 16 teams West has 15 teams until Kansas City gets everything ready for NBA team to be put in West

This should be the new divisions that make the most sense:

West

Denver
Minnesota
Portland
Seattle
Utah

Golden State
LA Clippers
LA Lakers
Phoenix
Sacramento

Dallas
Houston
Kansas City
New Orleans
OKC
San Antonio

East

Atlanta
Charlotte
Memphis
Miami
Orlando

76ers
Boston
Brooklyn
New York
Washington

Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Indiana
Milwaukee

beasted86
11-17-2013, 08:16 PM
Don't get your panties in a bunch. I was talking during the lakers spurs dallas era when when the western conference had the best top 3 teams and all the teams in the playoffs were +.500. It shows that having the best teams in the conference doesn't mean the 6-8th seed having losing records. So that hypothesis is wrong. The real answer is that they just aren't good teams besides the usual 4 teams.

I guess my post flew completely over your head.

My point is who cares how good the 5-9 seeds are in each conference?
In the last 30 years, how many 5 seed or later teams won a championship?

You people make a habit out of making an issue and arguing over complete utter foolishness. SMFH.

tredigs
11-17-2013, 08:22 PM
I guess my post flew completely over your head.

My point is who cares how good the 5-9 seeds are in each conference?
In the last 30 years, how many 5 seed or later teams won a championship?

You people make a habit out of making an issue and arguing over complete utter foolishness. SMFH.

Because it allows these pathetic sub .500 EC teams to get into the playoffs while year after year the better squads in the West fail to get in. It's lopsided due to the perpetual talent disparity. Championships are the pinnacle, but making the playoffs is also an achievement. And frankly I'd just like to see only good teams in the post-season. In basketball the benefits outweigh the negatives to just have the top 16 teams get in each season. What is the point of watching a true contender get a gimme in the 1st round each season in the East by playing a sub .500 squad? The dwellers of the East will still have the advantage in that they get to pay one another more often, so all is not lost for them.

LTBaByyy
11-17-2013, 08:23 PM
If you look at my last post, Memphis would be a powerhouse in the East just like Indiana

They are even to me. But since Memphis is in the west they are like 10th in standings so far. Move them to East where they should be location wise and start expansion in Seattle

Indiana would 100% not be as good in the West when majority of your games are against OKC, Golden State, Houston, San Antonio, Clippers, Dallas, even Minnesota, Portland. The list goes on

SPURSFAN1
11-17-2013, 08:28 PM
If you look at my last post, Memphis would be a powerhouse in the East just like Indiana

They are even to me. But since Memphis is in the west they are like 10th in standings so far. Move them to East where they should be location wise and start expansion in Seattle

Indiana would 100% not be as good in the West when majority of your games are against OKC, Golden State, Houston, San Antonio, Clippers, Dallas, even Minnesota, Portland. The list goes on

I agree completely. The 6-10 seeds would destroy the 5-8th seed in the east. The top eastern teams basically get a by for the first round, conserving their energy.

P&GRealist
11-17-2013, 08:33 PM
Yes, the Western Conference is the much stronger conference, that is lopsided with the elite teams and elite talent. That's exactly why in the past 10 years, the East only won 5 championships, but the West has won 5 championships.

Wait.... I mean, in the past 26 years, the East only won 13 championships, and West won freaking 13 championships.

So you fools should never talk bad about the mighty Western Conference.

It's easy for the East to win a title when they have a cake walk the first 2 rounds and face stiff competition in the ECF while the West teams are beating each other up from day 1 from when the playoffs starting in game 1 of the 1st round.

JEDean89
11-17-2013, 08:33 PM
I think it would be awesome to eventually expand 2 more teams in the league, move Memphis or NO to the Eastern conference and have 4 divisions of 4 teams in each conference. Something like

Portland
Seattle
Utah
Denver

OKC
KC
Minnesota
Memphis

LAC
LAL
GSW
SAC

HOU
DALL
SA
PHOE

MIL
IND
CHI
DET

MIA
ORL
ATL
NO

NY
BKL
TOR
BOS

CLE
PHIL
CHAR
WASH

this would be ideal

ackar
11-17-2013, 08:37 PM
I think it is something really simple. Warm weather out west it is warmer. Hell I am moving from Chicago to L.A. in early 2014. i like warm weather so does the players. Many of the top players have headed out west. Could be wrong though.

Guppyfighter
11-17-2013, 08:45 PM
The path of least resistant in the NBA makes it more likely for you to win a finals. If the Spurs have to deal with the Twolves and the Heat have to deal with the Bucks, who do you think advances more often if you did a simulation a bunch of times?

bholly
11-17-2013, 08:58 PM
Yes, the Western Conference is the much stronger conference, that is lopsided with the elite teams and elite talent. That's exactly why in the past 10 years, the East only won 5 championships, but the West has won 5 championships.

Wait.... I mean, in the past 26 years, the East only won 13 championships, and West won freaking 13 championships.

So you fools should never talk bad about the mighty Western Conference.


I guess my post flew completely over your head.

My point is who cares how good the 5-9 seeds are in each conference?
In the last 30 years, how many 5 seed or later teams won a championship?

You people make a habit out of making an issue and arguing over complete utter foolishness. SMFH.

There is more to the NBA than just who wins the championship each year. Some people (although I often realize this doesn't include everyone here) actually like the sport and just want to see it being played at a high level. Amongst other issues, if there's a disparity between the conferences then the current playoff system means the 16 playoff teams might not be the 16 teams that give us the highest quality basketball, and that's a problem for many people.
If all you care about is whether or not your team wins then that's your right, but don't **** on people who have other interests.

Pablonovi
11-17-2013, 09:09 PM
pretty much. Been sick of watching a team 10-14 games over .500 missing the playoffs in one conference, and two teams under .500 making it because of the ****** conference they play in.

The funny thing is, so many act like the Heat, or Celtics when they won, were just champs of garbage. Go back and check the Jordan era. The east has had poor management for nearly 25 years.

Hey Hawk (and everyone),
I'm betting that the disparity between the two conferences will be one of the worst lop-sided ever. I OP'd a thread on this very topic and still stick completely to my position (it was narrowly defeated in that OP poll mostly because people argued that the additional travel time (due to Western Conference teams playing in the Eastern Conference Playoffs) would be too much of a hardship. BUT, we see that the NBA itself just added additional travel days and time to the Finals themselves (to make them fairer). So if it is OK to add that to the Finals to make them fairer (and it certainly is fairer to have the team with the better regular season record play the Finals game 5 at home, thus keeping home-court advantage, not like in the 2-3-2 set-up); then the Play-offs system should be changed so that these crappy teams in the East (who can't even get winning records while playing very-weak East-heavy schedules) DON'T get into the playoffs and quality teams in the West (who DO get winning records even though playing thru the much-stronger West-heavy schedules) DO get into the playoffs.

It bums me out and pisses me off to see this year after year. Remember Dirk missing the playoffs despite being a great player on a good team and despite being decidedly better than a number of East sub .500 teams? I would have much rather see what Dirk and company could have done with their well-deserved spot in the playoffs, than any of these sub .500 crappy East teams.

And then there's that super-strong argument about the great advantage to the Eastern Conf. Finals team as compared to the Western Conf. Finals team. The Western Finals team had to play much harder for more rounds to even get to the Finals, whereas the Eastern Finals team typically comes in in much better shape due to the unfair advantage of playing much easier teams for the first two rounds at least. imo, this sucks.

There was good debate in our previous discussion (from this past summer, July 22 - Aug 04, 2013), it might be worth your while to review it, it's only 80 posts long:

LINK for the "Hey, NBA Commissioner; How About Putting The Best 16 Teams In The Playoffs?" thread:
http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?830369-Hey-NBA-Commissioner-How-About-Putting-The-Best-16-Teams-In-The-Playoffs

SPURSFAN1
11-17-2013, 09:15 PM
Hey Hawk (and everyone),
I'm betting that the disparity between the two conferences will be one of the worst lop-sided ever. I OP'd a thread on this very topic and still stick completely to my position (it was narrowly defeated in that OP poll mostly because people argued that the additional travel time (due to Western Conference teams playing in the Eastern Conference Playoffs) would be too much of a hardship. BUT, we see that the NBA itself just added additional travel days and time to the Finals themselves (to make them fairer). So if it is OK to add that to the Finals to make them fairer (and it certainly is fairer to have the team with the better regular season record play the Finals game 5 at home, thus keeping home-court advantage, not like in the 2-3-2 set-up); then the Play-offs system should be changed so that these crappy teams in the East (who can't even get winning records while playing very-weak East-heavy schedules) DON'T get into the playoffs and quality teams in the West (who DO get winning records even though playing thru the much-stronger West-heavy schedules) DO get into the playoffs.

It bums me out and pisses me off to see this year after year. Remember Dirk missing the playoffs despite being a great player on a good team and despite being decidedly better than a number of East sub .500 teams? I would have much rather see what Dirk and company could have done with their well-deserved spot in the playoffs, than any of these sub .500 crappy East teams.

And then there's that super-strong argument about the great advantage to the Eastern Conf. Finals team as compared to the Western Conf. Finals team. The Western Finals team had to play much harder for more rounds to even get to the Finals, whereas the Eastern Finals team typically comes in in much better shape due to the unfair advantage of playing much easier teams for the first two rounds at least. imo, this sucks.

There was good debate in our previous discussion (from this past summer, July 22 - Aug 04, 2013), it might be worth your while to review it, it's only 80 posts long:

LINK for the "Hey, NBA Commissioner; How About Putting The Best 16 Teams In The Playoffs?" thread:
http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?830369-Hey-NBA-Commissioner-How-About-Putting-The-Best-16-Teams-In-The-Playoffs

I agree. along with weighted wins, such as beating a +.500 counts more than beating a -.500 teams. But casual fans won't get behind this because they're morons.

KnicksorBust
11-17-2013, 09:16 PM
The path of least resistant in the NBA makes it more likely for you to win a finals. If the Spurs have to deal with the Twolves and the Heat have to deal with the Bucks, who do you think advances more often if you did a simulation a bunch of times?

There is absolutely no proof of this.

KnicksorBust
11-17-2013, 09:17 PM
I agree completely. The 6-10 seeds would destroy the 5-8th seed in the east. The top eastern teams basically get a by for the first round, conserving their energy.

Purely speculation.

SPURSFAN1
11-17-2013, 09:19 PM
It's kinda like getting an art degree and getting a 4.0gpa at graduation and another person getting a 3.5 gpa getting an engineering degree. Sure the 4.0gpa is higher, but it's not more impressive than getting a 3.5gpa in a harder field.

tredigs
11-17-2013, 09:24 PM
This thread reminds me of how much I was looking forward to year 2 of the "We Believe" Warriors squad in the post-season after they took out the 67 win Mavs in 07. But 14 games over .500 didn't cut it out West. Instead we got 3 teams in the East without a winning record landing spots, with only the #1-3 seeds actually having a better record than GS. That's a personal one of mine that annoyed me a bit, but it's a similar story most seasons. Let's just have the best basketball teams in the post-season, enough of this nonsense of sub .500 teams in the East never, ever advancing to the 2nd round and more often then not serving as a week of "playoff practice" for whatever contender they have.

SPURSFAN1
11-17-2013, 09:25 PM
Purely speculation.

10 seed memphis grizzlies would beat the atlanta hawks if it was the playoffs right now.

KnicksorBust
11-17-2013, 09:29 PM
This thread reminds me of how much I was looking forward to year 2 of the "We Believe" Warriors squad in the post-season after they took out the 67 win Mavs in 07. But 14 games over .500 didn't cut it out West. Instead we got 3 teams in the East without a winning record landing spots, with only the #1-3 seeds actually having a better record than GS. That's a personal one of mine that annoyed me a bit, but it's a similar story most seasons. Let's just have the best basketball teams in the post-season, enough of this nonsense of sub .500 teams in the East never, ever advancing to the 2nd round and more often then not serving as a week of "playoff practice" for whatever contender they have.

That Warriors team was built to beat the Mavs but no one else. I get this fairy tale of wanting fun 8 seeds but if they can't make a deep run it's meaningless.


10 seed memphis grizzlies would beat the atlanta hawks if it was the playoffs right now.

That's your opinion and I don't even agree with you. The Hawks have the size-speed-shooting to beat the Grizz who only made their miracle run because catching the right opponents as they dealt with injuries.

SPURSFAN1
11-17-2013, 09:33 PM
That Warriors team was built to beat the Mavs but no one else. I get this fairy tale of wanting fun 8 seeds but if they can't make a deep run it's meaningless.



That's your opinion and I don't even agree with you. The Hawks have the size-speed-shooting to beat the Grizz who only made their miracle run because catching the right opponents as they dealt with injuries.

Bullsh...it. I don't care what you say. The grizzlies were good and still are. Having a new coach might have slowed them down this year, but they are more talented than atlanta charlotte orlando and detroit. None of these teams win four vs the grizz.

tredigs
11-17-2013, 09:34 PM
That Warriors team was built to beat the Mavs but no one else. I get this fairy tale of wanting fun 8 seeds but if they can't make a deep run it's meaningless.




Well, obviously it was built better than 12 of the 15 teams in the East. The idea is to be able to watch the highest quality of basketball against each other in the playoffs.

lamzoka
11-17-2013, 09:38 PM
-

sciferguy
11-17-2013, 09:50 PM
It would make the first 2 rounds more interesting in the east to say the very least.

There should be some stipulation that if a team from the opposite conference has a better record, then they are allowed to take your seeded spot in your conference.

SPURSFAN1
11-17-2013, 09:55 PM
It would make the first 2 rounds more interesting in the east to say the very least.

There should be some stipulation that if a team from the opposite conference has a better record, then they are allowed to take your seeded spot in your conference.

I can see that. Maybe even help out the east and say the west team has to also have 5 more wins than the east team and only for losing records.

tredigs
11-17-2013, 09:59 PM
And realistically it only helps to perpetuate the team sucking if they're making the playoffs without a winning record. No chance in the lotto.

Hawkeye15
11-17-2013, 10:12 PM
The past is the past. SAS is a mirage. The Pacers have no holes.

I need far more sample size than 9 games dude. Sorry. I take SA or OKC anyday over Indy.

koreancabbage
11-17-2013, 10:19 PM
10 seed memphis grizzlies would beat the atlanta hawks if it was the playoffs right now.

I don't even know if that's true after watching my Toronto Raptors torch them LOL

SPURSFAN1
11-17-2013, 10:21 PM
I don't even know if that's true after watching my Toronto Raptors torch them LOL

Do the raptors even know what playoffs are?

bholly
11-17-2013, 10:23 PM
The problem to me is that as long as the conferences have such different schedules, the records aren't directly comparable anyway. The playoffs will always be determined by record, at least in the foreseeable future - the most radical they would go would be a points system like hockey which would still be a direct function of record - but .500 means different things in conferences with different schedule strengths. The only way I see to make sure the best 16 (or whatever number) teams get into the playoffs is to get rid of the conferences all together - and the travel costs are likely to be way too much relative to the benefit (to the teams, owners, and league) of who the low seeds are. This isn't the NFL or MLB where you travel once or twice a week.

NBA_Starter
11-17-2013, 10:25 PM
West is the best.

Hawkeye15
11-17-2013, 11:22 PM
There is absolutely no proof of this.

a few years ago, a 48 win team missed the playoffs in the west, and 2 teams under .500 made it in the east. The initial rounds for the east elites are a joke. Have been for closing in on 2 decades. The pure fact is, the west is beyond dominant over the past 20+ years.

torocan
11-18-2013, 12:19 AM
Personally I would like to see the playoffs be a bit more of a hybrid.

The division champions (Atlantic, Central, SE, NW, Pacific, SW) all get a guaranteed play off spot.
The remaining 10 spots go by overall NBA record.

That way there's a reward for being the best in your division, AND a reward for being a winning team.

It's just wrong that a team that can't get over .500 is in the play offs over 3 or 4 teams with .500+ records, especially when playing in a tougher conference.

SPURSFAN1
11-18-2013, 12:39 AM
Personally I would like to see the playoffs be a bit more of a hybrid.

The division champions (Atlantic, Central, SE, NW, Pacific, SW) all get a guaranteed play off spot.
The remaining 10 spots go by overall NBA record.

That way there's a reward for being the best in your division, AND a reward for being a winning team.

It's just wrong that a team that can't get over .500 is in the play offs over 3 or 4 teams with .500+ records, especially when playing in a tougher conference.

kinda like the pelicans mavs spurs grizz and rockets.

torocan
11-18-2013, 12:43 AM
kinda like the pelicans mavs spurs grizz and rockets.

Toss in Portland, Minnesota and Dallas any given year.

Really, aside from the downside of not having the best teams in the play offs (worse basketball), is I think it allows the weaker Eastern teams to be lazy.

They don't have to be as competitive in terms of how they manage their rosters, or the quality of management they hire because they don't have to field a team that's nearly as good.

A more equitable play off system would not only result in better basketball, but force more teams in the East to actually build higher quality teams. This would be good for the NBA.

EL_MACHETE
11-18-2013, 01:01 AM
The east has always been weaker than the west

RiceOnTheRun
11-18-2013, 01:26 AM
This is not shocking. Teams are trying to tank. This is not going to be a good year for parity in the nba. Either you're a championship contender or you're going for a high draft pick. Nobody wants to be caught in between.

They're not doing a very good job considering Boston and Philly, both originally considered prime tanking candidates, are ahead of NY and BK, teams considered to be 'elite' eastern teams.

FlashBolt
11-18-2013, 01:38 AM
East is less diluted. That is why teams aren't as dominant. Much better teams this year.

Alayla
11-18-2013, 10:19 AM
The past is the past. SAS is a mirage. The Pacers have no holes.

People make this argument every single year and they look stupider and stupider by the end of each season did you forget they where in the finals.

PacersForLife
11-18-2013, 11:01 AM
If you look at my last post, Memphis would be a powerhouse in the East just like Indiana

They are even to me.

No offense to Memphis, but I don't buy this anymore. We beat them pretty easily and they don't have a guy like Paul George. Also, Lance Stephenson is a better scorer than Tony Allen.

The only real similarities we have is our big men.

Pablonovi
11-18-2013, 01:41 PM
East is less diluted. That is why teams aren't as dominant. Much better teams this year.

Hey FlashBolt,
Even though we've only had some 10 or so games per team, the results, if anything, show that the East is MORE diluted with ONLY 3 teams with winning records "Much better teams" ?? NOT. How do you figure (I am NOT making fun; I would truthfully like to see your reasoning)? (I do agree that there's a good chance that Indy and Chicago, will be more competitive with Miami than the #2 and #3 teams were last year).

Right now, if you compare records: East vs West, #1 vs #1, #2 vs #2, etc., you get West has the better record (team) in 12 out of 15 cases, they tie for two, and only the last-place team is worse. That's total dominance.

Anybody know if there's ever been a more-extreme case of one Conference dominating the other in this regard?

Pablonovi
11-18-2013, 02:06 PM
The east has always been weaker than the west

Hey EL_MACHETE,
This IS the case for the last 20-30 years; but definitely NOT so back during the decade of the Celtics-Lakers Finals; the East was definitely stronger for quite a few years then.

Pablonovi
11-18-2013, 02:17 PM
Toss in Portland, Minnesota and Dallas any given year.

Really, aside from the downside of not having the best teams in the play offs (worse basketball), is I think it allows the weaker Eastern teams to be lazy.

They don't have to be as competitive in terms of how they manage their rosters, or the quality of management they hire because they don't have to field a team that's nearly as good.

A more equitable play off system would not only result in better basketball, but force more teams in the East to actually build higher quality teams. This would be good for the NBA.

Hey torocan,
Excellent point.
Similarly, in the West less teams can afford to risk cutting back starters' minutes because each game means more ... in the West you can win lots and not get in, in the East you can lose lots and YES get it.

Perhaps the most famous (and as recent-as-can-be) example: Kobe - heavy, heavy minutes last year to barely squeak in to the Playoffs. Boy could he have logged lots less minutes, AND STILL MADE THE PLAYOFFS, IF a fairer system had been in place.

Pablonovi
11-18-2013, 02:26 PM
Personally I would like to see the playoffs be a bit more of a hybrid.

The division champions (Atlantic, Central, SE, NW, Pacific, SW) all get a guaranteed play off spot.
The remaining 10 spots go by overall NBA record.

That way there's a reward for being the best in your division, AND a reward for being a winning team.

It's just wrong that a team that can't get over .500 is in the play offs over 3 or 4 teams with .500+ records, especially when playing in a tougher conference.

Hey torocan,
I'm with you about:
1) all division champs getting a guaranteed spot;
2) about the remaining spots getting in by best overall record; and
3) sub .500 teams NOT getting in (unless, of course, there are less than 16 otherwise qualifiers; then you'd have to fill in the brackets with the best of the sub .500 teams).

But, what's your position about how to divide up those 10 spots? It seems to me that these should be divided up BY conference; with the only exception(s) being each year that one conference has more qualifiers than the other; then the lowest qualifiers from the better conference would be shifted (just for the playoffs) over to the weaker conference's playoff bracket.

Following this scheme, the next logical question would then be: where would they be slotted there?:
a) at the bottom (justified for having qualified lowest from the opposing conference); or
b) by overall record (justified for having (a) better record(s) than other qualifiers in that bracket.

I think "b)" is the better option because, afterall, they ARE better teams (both due to better overall records AND against better opposition).

Pablonovi
11-18-2013, 02:34 PM
The problem to me is that as long as the conferences have such different schedules, the records aren't directly comparable anyway. The playoffs will always be determined by record, at least in the foreseeable future - the most radical they would go would be a points system like hockey which would still be a direct function of record - but .500 means different things in conferences with different schedule strengths. The only way I see to make sure the best 16 (or whatever number) teams get into the playoffs is to get rid of the conferences all together - and the travel costs are likely to be way too much relative to the benefit (to the teams, owners, and league) of who the low seeds are. This isn't the NFL or MLB where you travel once or twice a week.

Hey bholly,
I don't agree with a number of your points.
1) Records ARE comparable. IF one conference has won more games against the other conference (especially in terms of those with winning records!) then, clearly that conference is the better one AND with the more difficult strength of schedule (afterall, teams play other Conference rivals 4 times, and non-Conference ones only twice).

2) Don't need a points system like hockey; because of "1)" above.

3) Don't need to, shouldn't get rid of, Conferences all together; thus, no major increase in travel time or costs (just a little extra come playoff time - and only in a few cases each year. IF some low ranked cross-conference qualifier were to beat a higher ranked team in that higher team's own conference playoffs, then, you would get more travel time/cost in the next round - true. BUT, you'd also get better teams and play in that round; which much more than merely justifies it.

Pablonovi
11-18-2013, 02:36 PM
a few years ago, a 48 win team missed the playoffs in the west, and 2 teams under .500 made it in the east. The initial rounds for the east elites are a joke. Have been for closing in on 2 decades. The pure fact is, the west is beyond dominant over the past 20+ years.

Hey Hawk,
As is your want, you've most focused/clarified things in the fewest words.
It's a travesty and infuriating.

torocan
11-18-2013, 02:43 PM
Hey torocan,
I'm with you about:
1) all division champs getting a guaranteed spot;
2) about the remaining spots getting in by best overall record; and
3) sub .500 teams NOT getting in (unless, of course, there are less than 16 otherwise qualifiers; then you'd have to fill in the brackets with the best of the sub .500 teams).

But, what's your position about how to divide up those 10 spots? It seems to me that these should be divided up BY conference; with the only exception(s) being each year that one conference has more qualifiers than the other; then the lowest qualifiers from the better conference would be shifted (just for the playoffs) over to the weaker conference's playoff bracket.

Following this scheme, the next logical question would then be: where would they be slotted there?:
a) at the bottom (justified for having qualified lowest from the opposing conference); or
b) by overall record (justified for having (a) better record(s) than other qualifiers in that bracket.

I think "b)" is the better option because, afterall, they ARE better teams (both due to better overall records AND against better opposition).

I think in terms of breaking up the play off brackets, you do it similarly to other tournament seeding systems.

1/3/5 on bracket A, 2/4/6 on bracket B. Then play it off just like you would East vs West.

Yes, this would mean lower seed teams would have to fly more, on the other hand it adds more meaning to home court advantage. And really, with modern flying time it's not THAT much of an inconvenience considering they're giving breaks between every game.

The main thing is you force bad teams to get better, and you get to see the best basketball. And that's good for everyone.

monty77
11-18-2013, 02:46 PM
It is clear that this situation won't last all the season, but it's evident that this three teams are going to take a very good records. I expect that MIA, IND and CHI are going to reach close to 60 victories this year. So I think that 3 of the 5 better teams in the NBA are in the EAST Conference.

However, if we look at the best 15 teams, I think that only 5 of these 15 belong to the EAST Conference, Brooklyn and New York included. Maybe Cavs, Pistons or Wizards are able to take this step this season, but nowadays, there are 10 western teams among the best 15 without no doubt.

The most likely is that 6 or 7 teams finish with a positive record finally. The last playoff spot has been reached with a negative record in last years. With 38-40 victories has been possible to dispute playoffs. Nevertheless, in the West you need 45 victories to win this right. This is the reason why Western Conference is better.

If the next draft is as good as everybody says and 3 or 4 of the best picks go to East Teams, the landscape is going to change because there are younger teams in the East conference. The before-mentioned Cavs, Wizards and Pistons are a good examples, but there are others like Magics and 76ers in the same situation, but they're still with less talent.

No wonder if there are only 5 teams with positive record, and no wonder if there are 3 matchup with a 4-0 score in the first round of East playoffs, because there are a lot of diference between these 3 teams with the other ones.

beasted86
11-18-2013, 03:16 PM
Because it allows these pathetic sub .500 EC teams to get into the playoffs while year after year the better squads in the West fail to get in. It's lopsided due to the perpetual talent disparity. Championships are the pinnacle, but making the playoffs is also an achievement. And frankly I'd just like to see only good teams in the post-season. In basketball the benefits outweigh the negatives to just have the top 16 teams get in each season. What is the point of watching a true contender get a gimme in the 1st round each season in the East by playing a sub .500 squad? The dwellers of the East will still have the advantage in that they get to pay one another more often, so all is not lost for them.

If you guys care about a scrub team getting into the playoffs just to get knocked out just as easy, then you clearly have nothing better to do. Too bad, go cry somewhere else about what is often only a 4-5 game difference.

This stuff doesn't matter. The elite teams matter.

If anything they need to adopt a baseball system with less teams in the post season, or a football system where elite teams don't need to waste a round of possibly getting injured playing 7 games against trash.

I certainly don't watch the playoffs to see 1 vs 8 seeds unless my team is playing, so as I said, you guys are complaining over complete and utter foolishness.

beasted86
11-18-2013, 03:20 PM
It's easy for the East to win a title when they have a cake walk the first 2 rounds and face stiff competition in the ECF while the West teams are beating each other up from day 1 from when the playoffs starting in game 1 of the 1st round.

You are right. The East has only won championships and dominated the 90s because the West was tired come playoff time. The Celtics and Bulls really don't deserve their titles. We should give them to the WCF winners.

I really need to stop coming into the NBA forum because the stupidity is baffling. Really. I'm going to take my own advice for at least 1 month from today. Have fun guys.

kobe4thewinbang
11-18-2013, 03:34 PM
You obviously can't change the poor state of several eastern conference teams without abandoning the entire east versus west finals format.

You'd have to change the qualifications for making the playoffs. That way, western conference teams who barely missed the cut, despite having easily superior records than those awful eastern conference teams that did make the cut, would qualify instead.

As I said, this change would require an overhaul of the entire design for the playoffs, but you could potentially have a good series between conferences more often than strictly the finals itself, or possibly two western conference teams in the finals, and generally more competitive matches (no more sweeps in the first round, like the Heat crushing the Bucks last year or Spurs crushing the Kobe-less Lakers).

This overhaul would clearly be a controversial one, if it ever happened.

Chronz
11-18-2013, 03:52 PM
If you guys care about a scrub team getting into the playoffs just to get knocked out just as easy, then you clearly have nothing better to do.
The road to the championship is more arduous when the competition is stiffer. It may seem like a minute difference to you, but you've just witnessed your team (the last 2 years) barely scrap out series against squads the likes of which wouldn't be considered Elite by Western standards. If a hapless Boston team(+young Pacers) could push you guys to 7, imagine what would have happened if you had to go through 2 possibly 3 series like that before even making the Finals? Indiana being utterly dominant to start the season does give credence to the possibility that the Pacers were at that point becoming an elite team, thus worthy of respect in any conference, but for the year they weren't overly imposing. Clearly 2nd best in the Conference tho. Now imagine facing an Indy-eque team in extra series. That margin for error gets alot smaller with those "4-5" game differences.



Too bad, go cry somewhere else about what is often only a 4-5 game difference.
Depending on the standings/conference, those 4-5 games could be valued differently. Most experts dont focus solely on wins when ranking teams


This stuff doesn't matter. The elite teams matter.
Define Elite. I get the feeling we have very different barometers.



If anything they need to adopt a baseball system with less teams in the post season, or a football system where elite teams don't need to waste a round of possibly getting injured playing 7 games against trash.

I certainly don't watch the playoffs to see 1 vs 8 seeds unless my team is playing, so as I said, you guys are complaining over complete and utter foolishness.

I would rather not eliminate some of NBA's best upsets. Its hard enough in a sport where the best teams tend to win anyways (7 game series and all), but if you were to reduce it to a single game elimination format, would that be more to your liking?

Chronz
11-18-2013, 03:56 PM
You are right. The East has only won championships and dominated the 90s because the West was tired come playoff time. The Celtics and Bulls really don't deserve their titles. We should give them to the WCF winners.

I really need to stop coming into the NBA forum because the stupidity is baffling. Really. I'm going to take my own advice for at least 1 month from today. Have fun guys.
You could just bring up the fact that Magic and Kareem went through the same thing in the 80's, they had it cake up until the Finals in most seasons, wont see him apologizing for it. And even they got upset by "trash" teams, and thats because its very hard to just run the gamut every year in any conference.

Champs are champs, but it would be great for fans of the NBA and not just elite teams, to see them get a crack at the post season spot they deserve, that is if it was based on level of play..

tredigs
11-18-2013, 05:10 PM
If you guys care about a scrub team getting into the playoffs just to get knocked out just as easy, then you clearly have nothing better to do. Too bad, go cry somewhere else about what is often only a 4-5 game difference.

This stuff doesn't matter. The elite teams matter.

If anything they need to adopt a baseball system with less teams in the post season, or a football system where elite teams don't need to waste a round of possibly getting injured playing 7 games against trash.

I certainly don't watch the playoffs to see 1 vs 8 seeds unless my team is playing, so as I said, you guys are complaining over complete and utter foolishness.

Clearly you don't follow hoops outside of the Heat and the Eastern Conference if you have this take. Enjoy your break.

rockets-fan
11-18-2013, 05:19 PM
Clearly you don't follow hoops outside of the Heat and the Eastern Conference if you have this take. Enjoy your break.

This guy is just but hurt because his team is in the east, as is every other poster defending the east.

The west is better overall and seeing some of those west teams that don't get in is a shame considering they're way better than some east playoff teams. And it does matter because upsets and one of the most amazing things in sports, and I can't remember the last time a number one seed was upset in the east

Rockice_8
11-18-2013, 05:22 PM
This is just a venting thread for the 9-11 seeds in the West who miss the playoffs with better records than the 7-8th seeds in the East.

The East will have 6 teams over .500 when it's all said and done and the Champs reign in the East. The West can cry all they want about seeding and missing the playoffs but thats how it is. Win more games if you want to make the playoffs.

Plus things shift from one conference to the other. It's just been tough in the West recently. It hasn't been like that always. Go tank until Duncan retires, OKC gets blown up or Chris Paul retires early. Until then you play who you have to play and if you're good enough you'll make the playoffs.

bholly
11-18-2013, 11:35 PM
Hey bholly,
I don't agree with a number of your points.
1) Records ARE comparable. IF one conference has won more games against the other conference (especially in terms of those with winning records!) then, clearly that conference is the better one AND with the more difficult strength of schedule (afterall, teams play other Conference rivals 4 times, and non-Conference ones only twice).

2) Don't need a points system like hockey; because of "1)" above.

3) Don't need to, shouldn't get rid of, Conferences all together; thus, no major increase in travel time or costs (just a little extra come playoff time - and only in a few cases each year. IF some low ranked cross-conference qualifier were to beat a higher ranked team in that higher team's own conference playoffs, then, you would get more travel time/cost in the next round - true. BUT, you'd also get better teams and play in that round; which much more than merely justifies it.

I absolutely agree with #1 - I've used the conference vs conference record stats many times before in these discussions - but I don't see the relevance of that to what I said. Let me re-state it in different words in hope that it'll clear up the misunderstanding:
When I said records aren't comparable I meant that getting a particular record in one conference isn't the same as getting the same record in the other conference. For example, an East team that gets .500 isn't the same as a West team that gets .500, because the team in the East had a significantly easier schedule, so getting .500 is easier. Therefore just taking the top 16 records doesn't mean you're getting the best 16 teams - and the only way to fix that problem (assuming that we're always going to stick with a record-based system of deciding between teams) is to even up the schedules, which means getting rid of the conference scheduling system.
Is that clearer?

magic0320
11-18-2013, 11:49 PM
they should just get rid of conference. no one cares about conference championships. just have top 16 in the nba make the playoffs. now days they make so much money in the nba traveling isn't that much of issue.

LTBaByyy
11-19-2013, 12:33 AM
Mavs are 7-4

West: 8th seed East: 3rd seed

Pablonovi
11-19-2013, 01:38 AM
I absolutely agree with #1 - I've used the conference vs conference record stats many times before in these discussions - but I don't see the relevance of that to what I said. Let me re-state it in different words in hope that it'll clear up the misunderstanding:
When I said records aren't comparable I meant that getting a particular record in one conference isn't the same as getting the same record in the other conference. For example, an East team that gets .500 isn't the same as a West team that gets .500, because the team in the East had a significantly easier schedule, so getting .500 is easier. Therefore just taking the top 16 records doesn't mean you're getting the best 16 teams - and the only way to fix that problem (assuming that we're always going to stick with a record-based system of deciding between teams) is to even up the schedules, which means getting rid of the conference scheduling system.
Is that clearer?

Hey bholly,
Now it's perfectly clear; I had very much mis-understood you; thanx for the clarification. I fully agree with your point about the same record NOT being equal when comparing teams from unequal conferences.

Perhaps, the Eastern-Western Conference scheme can still be maintained while equalizing the strength-of-schedule; by having everybody play everybody else about 3 times (of course not exactly, but close enough).

Pablonovi
11-19-2013, 01:45 AM
they should just get rid of conference. no one cares about conference championships. just have top 16 in the nba make the playoffs. now days they make so much money in the nba traveling isn't that much of issue.

Hey magic0320,
I had not previously given much focused thought to this idea; but, now that I am/do ... there really is MUCH merit to this. In such a case, imo, the best playoff bracketing scheme would be:

Overall #1 (best record) vs overall 16; #2 vs #15; #3 vs #14; #4 vs 13; 5 vs 12; 6 vs 11; 7 vs 10; 8 vs 9.

The two halves would be:
A: 1,4,5,8,9,12,13,16
B: 2,3,6,7,10,11,14,15.

This would maximizes the chances that the Finals would include the best two teams (instead of them frequently meeting in a Conference Finals; with that winner battling an inferior team in the Finals - thus diminishing the quality of the Finals.

Pablonovi
11-19-2013, 01:55 AM
This is just a venting thread for the 9-11 seeds in the West who miss the playoffs with better records than the 7-8th seeds in the East.

The East will have 6 teams over .500 when it's all said and done and the Champs reign in the East. The West can cry all they want about seeding and missing the playoffs but thats how it is. Win more games if you want to make the playoffs.

Plus things shift from one conference to the other. It's just been tough in the West recently. It hasn't been like that always. Go tank until Duncan retires, OKC gets blown up or Chris Paul retires early. Until then you play who you have to play and if you're good enough you'll make the playoffs.

Hey rockice,
There's a couple of big problems with your points.
1) While it is still very early in the season, and theoretically the East could end up with 8 teams with better records than the #1 team in the West; for 20+ years, almost every year, the West has been decidedly better than the West, automatically eliminating better West teams while allowing weaker East teams in - this is just plain unfair (no big deal if it was just once in awhile, or alternated between conferences - but it doesn't.)

2) Besides being un-fair (which would be easy to fix - though it would be a NEW thing to do so) it results in unevenness of play/effort - because every game is more valuable/important in the stronger Conference than in weaker. THIS in turn, "warps" (you could say) a number of things - rewarding losing teams while penalizing winning teams, rewarding coaches and players and FANS on losing teams while penalizing coaches and players and FANS on winning teams; changing substitution patters (a losing team that's still gonna qualify for the playoffs can afford to rest starters/stars while a winning-record team that might not make it, must push extra minutes on its starters/stars.

Conversely, the more equal the qualifying system is, the more equalized will be each team's effort towards putting out a high(er) quality product on the floor for us fans.

A more fair system producing better quality play all regular season long and fairer and better quality and more competitive playoffs.. Doesn't this make sense?

Pablonovi
11-19-2013, 02:02 AM
I think in terms of breaking up the play off brackets, you do it similarly to other tournament seeding systems.

1/3/5 on bracket A, 2/4/6 on bracket B. Then play it off just like you would East vs West.

Yes, this would mean lower seed teams would have to fly more, on the other hand it adds more meaning to home court advantage. And really, with modern flying time it's not THAT much of an inconvenience considering they're giving breaks between every game.

The main thing is you force bad teams to get better, and you get to see the best basketball. And that's good for everyone.

Hey torocan,
If you think about it, you don't want 1/3/5 and 2/4/6 (because all three in the first bracket are better compared to their counterpart in the second bracket. 1/4/5/8 (plus 9,12,13,16) and 2/3/6/7 (plus 10,11,14,15) equalized things - and that IS the system that is traditionally used in a number of sports (particularly where they are deliberately trying to keep things as fair as possible from bracket to bracket.

torocan
11-19-2013, 02:06 AM
Hey torocan,
If you think about it, you don't want 1/3/5 and 2/4/6 (because all three in the first bracket are better compared to their counterpart in the second bracket. 1/4/5/8 (plus 9,12,13,16) and 2/3/6/7 (plus 10,11,14,15) equalized things - and that IS the system that is traditionally used in a number of sports (particularly where they are deliberately trying to keep things as fair as possible from bracket to bracket.

Thanks, you're right. I was just winging it as I didn't have an actual play off bracket sitting in front of me. :)

The ideal is to equalize the 2 brackets as much as possible through record, then let it go from there. As long as we see the best teams playing against each other, I would be happy.

ILLUSIONIST^248
11-19-2013, 02:15 AM
Indy.
Miami.
Chicago.
Atlanta.

Every other team is either at .500 (Charlotte), or below it (ever other team). The Atlantic division doesn't have a single team at .500 or higher.


This obviously can't last all season, and is likely an anomaly, but with NY and BK playing poorly, and the Bobcats being the fifth best team in the east, it is a pattern that suggests there is a problem in the east.

The West, surprisingly, only have 8 teams over .500 (in years past the west has seen two or three teams over .500 miss the playoffs). So the issue is not an heavy imbalance between the west and east, but simply a disparity between the good teams and the REALLY REALLY bad teams.

Do you guys thinks there is a disparity problem in the league? And if so, what is the root cause? Simply bad drafting? Anomalous injuries? Super teams? Or is this just an anomaly that will be corrected by the end of December?

The east, this decade is the worst conference in league history, just another reason why the Heats ships are watered down. No real competition..

Pablonovi
11-19-2013, 02:25 AM
I guess my post flew completely over your head.

My point is who cares how good the 5-9 seeds are in each conference?
In the last 30 years, how many 5 seed or later teams won a championship?

You people make a habit out of making an issue and arguing over complete utter foolishness. SMFH.

Hey beasted,
Other people have addressed well. But I'd add: according to your reasoning, the playoffs shouldn't even have 16 teams or even 12 - afterall they don't win the chip. So, accordingly, the playoffs should be reduced down to 4,6 or at most 8 total teams. BUT, in no sport do ALL the play-off qualifying teams have a great chance to win the Championship. The playoffs have more purposes than ONLY determining the Champions. Fans & players (and advertisers, etc.) for/on long-shot teams still enjoy the heck out of their teams even participating in the tournament.

So, unless you are arguing that only a very few teams should be in the playoffs; then the question becomes: WHO deserves to qualify (for example which 16 in the NBA)? The options basically come down to:
a) unfairly letting weak teams (especially sub .500 teams) qualify just because they play against weaker competition; or
b) let the best 16 teams qualify.

The "strongest" arguments against "b)" are:
1) it's always been done one way, it can't/shouldn't be changed (a very weak argument; heck they just changed the Finals format from 2-3-2 to 2-2-1-1-1 after many, many years);
2) too much extra travel-time (but with chartered flights and off-days, this is a very minor issue).

P&GRealist
11-19-2013, 02:44 AM
My point was it is easier for the top East teams these days when it comes to the playoffs.

But anyone who is trying to diminish the value of Miami's championships is a flat out idiot. They won those titles fair and square (well, with the exception of 06).

sammyvine
11-19-2013, 06:42 AM
the east sucks not matter how the east fanboys want to claim it doesn't

apart from the bulls, heat and pacers the rest of the teams are trash...
compare that to the west where you have OKC, Clippers, Golden State, Spurs and then you also have memphis, portland and even the lakers that can be competitive in some games.

sammyvine
11-19-2013, 06:44 AM
My point was it is easier for the top East teams these days when it comes to the playoffs.

But anyone who is trying to diminish the value of Miami's championships is a flat out idiot. They won those titles fair and square (well, with the exception of 06).

Oh i agree. No way should the heats titles come into question....but there is no denying the east sucks

2-ONE-5
11-19-2013, 11:24 AM
Sixers still lead the Atlancitc at 5-7. Both NY teams suck and dont have a bright future i love it.

Pablonovi
11-19-2013, 11:40 AM
Some have tried to claim that those who favor changing the NBA playoff-qualifying system to something fairer; only want this because they are fans of Western Conference teams who (regularly) miss out despite having good records. But I've been in favor of such a change since I first became an NBA fan some 55 years ago - purely on the basis of fairness. I have always had one favorite team (LAL); but, for me, almost equally as important, has been my appreciation of any players who excel in such a marvelous super-high-quality-athlete sport.

Witnessing star b-ball players pushing their teams to good records only to miss the playoffs has always irked me - they worked so hard, performed so well, entertained us so much, earned the right to compete for the title (even if they were long-shot odds ... that's a good part of the playoff thrill too).

So, for me (and many others) this is not a "spoil sport" or "sour grapes" cry-baby kind of a thing. It's a fairness thing.

Let's not forget too, that not so long ago the Houston Rockets (with the great Hakeem Olajuwon) took the chip while starting from the 5th (or 6th) ranked spot in the Western Conf. Overall they must have been ranked close to 10th; yet won the chip. They won all four series on the road. Nobody holds it against the Rockets or Hakeem that they pulled this off despite having a relatively weak regular season record and being playoff-ranked so low. It's part of the strong argument for Hakeem's very high GOAT ranking.

Along similar lines, I felt bad for the Mavs and especially Dirk (who I like a lot, but who is not one of my favorite players), because the two years after having just won the title in spectacular style, they had good enough records to have been allowed into the playoffs; but didn't get to participate (and thrill us); while definitely weaker teams from the East WERE allowed. And there's lots more examples like Dirk.

I also have great sympathy for fans such as Hawkeye (and many others) whose teams (usually small-market ones who have a much harder time competing, let's be honest) occasionally put it all together, have winning records and then don't get in.

Lastly, if a team I really cared for were to make the playoffs with a losing record, I'd be embarrassed that they were allowed to participate in the tournament and try for the title WHILE better teams weren't allowed.

P.S. I have never seen an attempted explanation for this decades-long Western Conference domination of the Eastern Conf. that seemed good enough, complete enough. There are more big cities (thus big markets) in the East than in the West. The travel time is always tougher for Western teams because geographically that conference covers lots more physical territory. You might think that once a Conference got "the edge" due to better athletes or better coaches, that might perpetuate itself for a few years; but this is way, far beyond that. Is it just the warmer/sunnier weather?

SouthSideRookie
11-19-2013, 12:00 PM
This is just a venting thread for the 9-11 seeds in the West who miss the playoffs with better records than the 7-8th seeds in the East.

The East will have 6 teams over .500 when it's all said and done and the Champs reign in the East. The West can cry all they want about seeding and missing the playoffs but thats how it is. Win more games if you want to make the playoffs.

Plus things shift from one conference to the other. It's just been tough in the West recently. It hasn't been like that always. Go tank until Duncan retires, OKC gets blown up or Chris Paul retires early. Until then you play who you have to play and if you're good enough you'll make the playoffs.

Give the west teams an EC schedule and they will.


The east, this decade is the worst conference in league history, just another reason why the Heats ships are watered down. No real competition..

Kobe-lead teams feasted on trash competition in the Finals to win their titles with the exception of Boston, you have no room to talk.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2013, 03:48 PM
My point was it is easier for the top East teams these days when it comes to the playoffs.

But anyone who is trying to diminish the value of Miami's championships is a flat out idiot. They won those titles fair and square (well, with the exception of 06).

the top 3 seeds in the east generally have a cake walk 1st round series is my entire problem. By no means should Miami's titles have anything taken away from them, its just been an issue forever. Long before the last few years. The 95' Magic faced a 35 win team in round one. 35 ****ing wins! How does that happen??

Pablonovi
11-19-2013, 06:18 PM
the top 3 seeds in the east generally have a cake walk 1st round series is my entire problem. By no means should Miami's titles have anything taken away from them, its just been an issue forever. Long before the last few years. The 95' Magic faced a 35 win team in round one. 35 ****ing wins! How does that happen??

Maybe a "worst-case scenario" this year could finally force change on the NBA. I wouldn't be surprised if the 9th thru 12th ranked West teams all have better records, this year, than the 5-8th ranked East Teams; maybe even the 4th one. Such a travesty might stir up enough protests from the quality but non-qualifying teams & their fans.

Pacerlive
11-19-2013, 09:01 PM
Maybe a "worst-case scenario" this year could finally force change on the NBA. I wouldn't be surprised if the 9th thru 12th ranked West teams all have better records, this year, than the 5-8th ranked East Teams; maybe even the 4th one. Such a travesty might stir up enough protests from the quality but non-qualifying teams & their fans.
It's about making money nothing else. No owner cares about what is fair so why even post about it. They want to make money and have the prestige of owning a franchise. East vs West is for the fans and no one pays much attention to them in the nba. Don't kid yourselves!

Hawkeye15
11-19-2013, 09:49 PM
Maybe a "worst-case scenario" this year could finally force change on the NBA. I wouldn't be surprised if the 9th thru 12th ranked West teams all have better records, this year, than the 5-8th ranked East Teams; maybe even the 4th one. Such a travesty might stir up enough protests from the quality but non-qualifying teams & their fans.

The new Comish is not going to change the playoff format his first year haha, but it would be awesome if they did.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2013, 09:50 PM
It's about making money nothing else. No owner cares about what is fair so why even post about it. They want to make money and have the prestige of owning a franchise. East vs West is for the fans and no one pays much attention to them in the nba. Don't kid yourselves!

meh, I don't think nixing a 39 win Milwaukee or Cleveland is going to kill playoff ratings. But I do get what you are saying, traditionally speaking.

Pablonovi
11-19-2013, 09:59 PM
It's about making money nothing else. No owner cares about what is fair so why even post about it. They want to make money and have the prestige of owning a franchise. East vs West is for the fans and no one pays much attention to them in the nba. Don't kid yourselves!

Hey Pacerlive,
I don't thing many pro-sports fans are UNAWARE that the team-owners are the BOSSES and that they are in it for the profit/money. But that fact shouldn't stop us from *****ing about stuff that: hurts the game, should be changed, and may very well be changed eventually. Our groundswell to change the play-off qualifying rules is just getting started. Let's push till we get an improved product with much more fairness!

P.S. It can't be good for the NBA to be rewarding ineptitude in half the League.

Trueblue2
11-19-2013, 10:31 PM
How bout a 1 game playoff between the seeded eastern team with the worse record and a west team with a higher record that didnt make the playoffs? That way there's still something to play for at the end of the year for lower seeded eastern teams. If the western team beats them in the one game playoff then the better team moved on, if the eastern team wins theyve proven they're worthy of being there.

Pablonovi
11-19-2013, 11:02 PM
How bout a 1 game playoff between the seeded eastern team with the worse record and a west team with a higher record that didnt make the playoffs? That way there's still something to play for at the end of the year for lower seeded eastern teams. If the western team beats them in the one game playoff then the better team moved on, if the eastern team wins theyve proven they're worthy of being there.

Hey trueblue,
About the lower seeded East teams, do you mean that there'd be increased competition to NOT end up 8th so they wouldn't be faced with that one-game elimination game? Interesting idea; but I think it'd bring a number of complications - starting with scheduling - because that extra game would have to either be squeezed in between the end of the reg. season and the first play-off games OR push back the play-offs for that one game - that won't work. Further, it doesn't really seem that a one game play-off is better than just putting the better team(s) in the playoffs.

Pablonovi
11-19-2013, 11:04 PM
How bout a 1 game playoff between the seeded eastern team with the worse record and a west team with a higher record that didnt make the playoffs? That way there's still something to play for at the end of the year for lower seeded eastern teams. If the western team beats them in the one game playoff then the better team moved on, if the eastern team wins theyve proven they're worthy of being there.

Hey trueblue,
About the lower seeded East teams, do you mean that there'd be increased competition to NOT end up 8th so they wouldn't be faced with that one-game elimination game? Interesting idea; but I think it'd bring a number of complications - starting with scheduling - because that extra game would have to either be squeezed in between the end of the reg. season and the first play-off games OR push back the play-offs for that one game - that won't work. Further, it doesn't really seem that a one game play-off is better than just putting the better team(s) in the playoffs.